Abstract
Purpose
Risk of violence by UK military personnel, both towards non-family and family, has been found to be higher post-deployment. However, no UK research to date has attempted to examine relationship conflict and intimate partner violence (IPV) in this period. This study estimated the prevalence of and risk factors for post-deployment relationship conflict and partner violence in UK military personnel.
Methods
We utilised data on military personnel who had deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan (n = 5437), drawn from a large cohort study into the health and well-being of UK military personnel.
Results
34.7% reported relationship conflict (arguing with partner) and 3.4% reported perpetrating physical IPV post-deployment. Males were more likely than females to report relationship conflict. There were similar rates of self-reported physical IPV perpetration among males and females. Among our male sample, factors associated with both relationship conflict and physical IPV perpetration post-deployment included being in the Army compared with the Royal Air Force, higher levels of childhood adversity, higher levels of military trauma exposure and recent mental health and alcohol misuse problems. Being over 40 at time of deployment (vs being under 25) and having deployed in a combat role were also associated with relationship conflict, but not physical IPV perpetration.
Conclusions
Deployment-related variables and mental health and alcohol misuse problems were found to be key factors associated with post-deployment relationship conflict and IPV. Services providing health or welfare support to military personnel must collaborate with mental health services and consider history of deployment, and particularly deployment-related trauma, in their assessments to improve identification and management of intimate partner violence and abuse in military communities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA), defined by the World Health Organisation as behaviour by a current or ex-partner who causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including controlling behaviours, is a major global public health problem [1, 2]. It has been marked as a UK Government priority, as evidenced by its recent launch of the Domestic Abuse Act [3]. In March 2020, an estimated 2.3–2.4 million adults reported experiencing domestic abuse in the past year in England and Wales [4]. This figure is likely higher today given the increased incidence reported during the Covid-19 pandemic [5, 6]. Along with associated adverse health effects, including physical injury, mental health and alcohol problems [7, 8], IPVA is estimated to cost £66 billion per annum in England and Wales alone [9]. Exposure to IPVA as a child has been comprehensively demonstrated to impact on life-course mental health outcomes and increases their risk of perpetrating IPVA or being victims themselves in adulthood [10,11,12].
Concerns about IPVA perpetration by serving and ex-serving military personnel in both the UK and the US are often reported in the media and within military and criminal justice circles [13,14,15,16,17]. Recent findings suggest IPVA perpetration in international military populations to be prevalent, and indeed, it has been shown to be more prevalent among UK military personnel than in the civilian population [18, 19]. There is mounting evidence that the post-deployment period is a time of higher risk of violence by military personnel [20, 21]. However, data on IPVA perpetration by UK military personnel in the post-deployment period are lacking. UK research into family violence among UK military personnel found that 3.6% reported hitting a family member in the weeks following return from deployment in Iraq/Afghanistan [22]; however, this study did not have data on partner violence.
Identifying the factors associated with IPVA perpetration has been a major research priority in an attempt to highlight targets for violence and harm reduction. A broad range of factors have been identified that increase the risk of being a perpetrator of IPVA in civilian populations, including male gender (for sexual and more severe forms of physical IPVA at least), younger age, low household income, low social support and family conflict [23], history of child abuse [24], and mental health or behavioural problems, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance misuse [25,26,27,28,29,30,31].
There are reasons to suspect that there may be factors associated with relationship conflict and IPVA perpetration which are specific to military populations. In recognition of these potential differences, the UK Ministry of Defence have published their own domestic abuse strategy [32]. The demands of military life, which often requires frequent relocation and family separation, can add to relationship stress and create a context in which conflict and abuse may be more likely to occur [33,34,35,36]. The period following return from operational deployment has been identified in qualitative research as a time of heightened relationship conflict [34, 36, 37]. UK research has found that among a large sample of UK personnel returned from deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, combat exposure was predictive of both general and family directed violence, but these studies did not measure partner violence [20,21,22, 38]. Findings from studies exploring the association between deployment and combat exposure or deployment-related trauma and IPVA have not been consistent [19, 39,40,41]. Post-deployment mental health problems, such as PTSD, and alcohol misuse have been found to be risk factors for partner violence in international studies [39, 41, 42]. These associations have been found for stranger and family directed violence perpetration among UK military personnel following return from deployment [20,21,22]. However, there remains a need for research examining the association between post-deployment mental health and behavioural difficulties and IPVA in the UK.
There is a lack of research into intimate relationships and partner violence in the UK military, in particular in the weeks following return from deployment. A better understanding of risk factors for post-deployment relationship conflict and partner violence in UK military personnel is needed to inform IPVA prevention, identification and management strategies as well as IPVA perpetrator programmes. To this end, this study aimed to use questionnaire data from a large sample of serving and ex-serving UK military personnel who deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan to estimate the prevalence of relationship conflict and partner violence perpetration in the weeks following return from deployment. The impact of role on deployment and exposure to deployment-related trauma will be examined, as well as the association of mental health and behavioural problems, such as PTSD, common mental disorder, difficulties with anger management and alcohol misuse, with these outcomes.
Methods
Study design and participants
These data were drawn from Phase 3 of data collection in an ongoing cohort study of the impact of operational deployment to Iraq/Afghanistan on the health and well-being of UK military personnel [43]. The cohort study commenced in June 2004 at the outset of the Iraq war and compared the health of two randomly selected samples: individuals who had deployed to the initial ground combat phase at the start of the conflict in Iraq (termed Op TELIC) were compared with individuals who were serving but who at that time had not deployed to Iraq (termed the Era group). At Phase 1, 10,272 participants were recruited between June 2004 and March 2006 (59% response rate) [44]. Of the Phase 1 participants, 6429 (56%) of the 9355 individuals who had consented to further contact completed Phase 2 of the study, which took place between November 2007 and September 2009 [45]. By Phase 2 of data collection, a second major deployment to Afghanistan (termed Op HERRICK) had commenced, and therefore, two additional samples were needed. A random sample of personnel deployed to Afghanistan between April 2006 and April 2007 along with a new sample of trained personnel who had joined service since April 2003 (the Phase 2 replenishment sample). A total of 9990 (56%) personnel responded at Phase 2 of the study.
Data collection for Phase 3 took place between October 2014 and December 2016. Phase 3 re-contacted participants who consented to further contact during Phase 1, or 2. The follow-up sample comprised 12,280 individuals; 10,148 regular and 2132 reserve personnel. A replenishment sample of trained regular and reserve personnel who joined the military on or after 1st August 2009 and were in service on the 31st March 2013 was also selected for sampling. This Phase 3 replenishment sample comprised 8581 individuals, 6915 regular and 1666 reserve personnel. Full details of the sampling and response rates have been reported previously [43]. This study utilised data from all those who responded to Phase 3 of the cohort study [43] and who had deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan (n = 5437). Those who responded ‘Not applicable’ to both relationship conflict or IPV questions (n = 825, suggestive of them not being in a relationship) and those who did not respond at all (n = 46) were excluded. The final sample consisted of 4,566 military personnel.
Measures
Participation in Phase 3 of the study involved completing a self-administered questionnaire available both online and in hard copy. At the time of completing the questionnaire, participants may have returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 4 months and 13 years, 11 months previously. Some may have left the military prior to participating in the study.
Socio-demographic and background characteristics
We examined data on sex, age at most recent deployment (under 25; 25–29; 30–34; 35–39; 40–44; 45 and over), relationship status (relationship; single/ex-relationship), and level of education (no qualification/O level equivalent, or A-level/degree level). We also asked 16 true/false questions about participants’ experiences (both adverse and protective) during childhood (Cronbach’s α = 0.751) [46]. Endorsed items were summed to create a vulnerability count: 0–2 (low); 3–5 (moderate); and 6 or more (high).
Military characteristics
We collected data on serving status (discharged; serving); service type (regular, reserve); service branch (Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force (RAF)); rank (Officer, non-commissioned officer (NCO), Other rank); deployment to Iraq and/or Afghanistan (Telic; Herrick); role on most recent deployment (non-combat; combat); and military trauma during most recent deployment—a cumulative score derived from endorsing a traumatic experience (13 in total) and the number of times it was experienced. Scores ranged from 0 to 52 (median = 5, IQR 2–12, α = 0.995), and were categorised into: 0, none; 1–5, mild; 6–12, moderate; and 13 or over, severe.
Mental health factors
Health questions enquired about symptoms of common mental disorder (CMD), measured using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12; α = 0.960) [47]; probable posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), measured using the 17-item National Centre for PTSD Checklist (PCL-5; α = 0.963) [48]; alcohol use, measured using the 10-item World Health Organization Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; α = 0.0.779) [49]. Binary outcome variables were defined using the following cutoff scores for caseness: 4 or more for the GHQ-12 (scores range from 0 to 36) [50], 50 or more for the PCL-5 (scores range from 17 to 85) [48], and 16 or more for the AUDIT (scores range from 0 to 40) [51] (usually defined as hazardous use that is also harmful to health, which we have termed alcohol misuse). Difficulties with anger management were measured using a score of 12 or above on the dimensions of anger reactions (DAR; α = 0.902) [52].
IPVA outcomes
Questions concerning relationship conflict or IPVA on return from most recent deployment were asked as part of a series of questions on homecoming experiences with the common stem ‘In the weeks after I came home…’, (i) ‘I argued with my spouse or partner’, or (ii) ‘I was physically violent towards my spouse or partner’. These were divided into two IPVA outcomes for analysis: arguing with partner and being physically violent towards partner.
Analyses
After running descriptive statistics on the whole sample, we conducted a series of univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses for our male sample only (n = 4146) using Stata 16 [53]. Given what is known about gender differences in behaviours within relationships, ideally the analyses would have been stratified by gender. However, the number of females (and outcomes in females) was too low to allow reliable interpretation of the regression models. Therefore, results in males only have been reported.
First, logistic regression analyses were used to examine the bivariate associations between each of the two IPVA outcomes and the socio-demographic, military, and mental health factors in turn. Second, multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the independent associations between each of the two IPVA outcomes and the socio-demographic variables. Finally, any socio-demographic variable that was independently associated with each IPVA outcome was retained as a covariate in subsequent multivariable logistic regression models examining the independent associations between each of the IPVA outcomes and each military and mental health factor. Given the potential for responder bias associated with the time since deployment, we conducted sensitivity analyses repeating our multivariate analyses with this variable as an additional covariate. To account for sampling and response rates [43], all analysis estimates were weighted using Stata’s survey function [53]. Prevalence estimates are reported as weighted proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI); results from the univariate analyses are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI; and the results from the multivariate analyses are reported as adjusted ORs (aOR) with 95% CI.
Results
Description of the sample
The sample consisted of 4566 military personnel who had deployed to Telic and/or Herrick at any time since April 2003, were in a relationship following their return from their most recent deployment and who responded to at least one of the relationship conflict and IPVA questions (see Table 1). The majority of the sample was male (92.92%), aged under 34 at last deployment (57.31%; median = 34, IQR = 28–40), and educated to at least A-level standard (or equivalent; 67.66%). In terms of military characteristics, most were regular personnel (92.60%), in the Army (70.31%), and non-commissioned officers (NCO; 67.38%). A little over half of the sample (50.99%) were currently serving personnel.
Prevalence of self-reported IPVA on return from deployment
The prevalence of self-reported IPVA on return from deployment is shown in Table 2. There was a high prevalence of self-reported arguments with spouses/partners in the weeks following return from deployment (34.66%, 95% CI 32.93–36.42) and males were significantly more likely than females to report this behaviour (35.37%, 95% CI 33.55–37.23 and 25.33%, 95% CI 20.74–30.54, respectively). A lower prevalence of physical violence towards spouses/partners was reported (3.42%, 95% CI 2.77–4.21), and males and females were just as likely to report this behaviour (3.46%, 95% CI 2.77–4.30 and 2.92%, 95% CI 1.57–5.38, respectively).
Socio-demographic, military and pre-enlistment factors associated with post-deployment IPVA
In our male sample, participants aged 40 and over had reduced odds of arguing with a spouse/partner, compared to those aged under 25 (45 and over vs. under 25, aOR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29–0.64; 40–44 vs under 25, aOR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.99; see Table 3). Participants no longer serving in the military at the time of completing the questionnaire were more likely to report both arguing with a spouse/partner (aOR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.04–1.48) and being violent towards a spouse/partner post-deployment (aOR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.21–3.34) compared to participants still serving in the military. Those serving in the RAF were less likely to report both arguing with (aOR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.62–0.97), and being violent towards (aOR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.06–0.45) a spouse/partner on return from deployment compared to those serving in the Army. Those who reported higher levels of childhood adversity were more likely to report both arguing with (high- and moderate- vs. low-adversity, aOR = 2.54, 95% CI 2.01–3.21 and aOR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.16–1.78, respectively), and being violent towards (high- vs. low-adversity, aOR = 3.63, 95% CI 1.65–7.95), a spouse/partner on return from deployment compared to those with low levels of childhood adversity.
Deployment factors associated with post-deployment IPVA
Having been deployed in a combat role compared to a non-combat role was independently associated with arguing with a spouse/partner on return from deployment (aOR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.18–1.66; see Table 4). Increasing levels of military-related trauma were associated with arguing with a spouse/partner post-deployment compared to no military-related trauma (severe, moderate, and low vs. none, aOR = 3.29, 95% CI 2.46–4.42, aOR = 2.39, 95% CI 1.79–3.18, and aOR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.31–2.31, respectively; see Table 4). Severe military trauma exposure was also independently associated with violence towards a spouse/partner on return from deployment compared to no military-related trauma (severe vs. none, aOR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.11–4.78).
Mental health factors associated with post-deployment IPVA
Arguing with a spouse/partner in the weeks following return from deployment was independently and strongly associated with probable PTSD (aOR = 5.71, 95% CI 3.85–8.47), alcohol misuse (aOR = 2.40, 95% CI 1.84–3.12), probable CMD (aOR = 3.04, 95% CI 2.44–3.78) and increased difficulties with anger management (aOR = 3.69, 95% CI 2.88–4.73), see Table 5. Being violent towards a spouse/partner following deployment was also independently and strongly associated with probable PTSD (aOR = 4.82, 95% CI 2.72–8.52, alcohol misuse (aOR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.36–3.97), probable CMD (aOR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.70–4.57), and increased difficulties with anger management (aOR = 5.72, 95% CI 3.43–9.54).
Sensitivity analyses
In our sensitivity analyses, we found that the association between serving status and both arguing with or being physically violent towards a spouse/partner upon return from deployment was no longer significant. This was likely due to the high collinearity between serving status and time since deployment. All other independent associations persisted after controlling for the time since the most recent deployment.
Discussion
This study found that among UK military personnel who were deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan between 2002 and 2016, relationship conflict (arguing) was highly prevalent (34.7%) in the weeks following return from deployment. This aligns with recent findings that the post-deployment period is perceived as a period of higher risk of relationship difficulties as well as abusive behaviours by military personnel [34, 36]. Physical intimate partner violence (IPV) was less commonly reported (3.4%) than arguing, but its prevalence adds to the growing evidence for the occurrence of general, family and now partner directed violence post-deployment among UK military personnel [22]. Our findings also provide valuable insight into factors associated with increased relationship conflict or physical IPV in the post-deployment period and identify groups most at risk of engaging in this behaviour. This may be helpful in understanding the higher prevalence of IPVA perpetration in UK military personnel compared to the general population in the UK [19, 20], particularly providing further support for the role of exposure to deployment-related trauma and mental health and alcohol misuse difficulties.
Gender differences were not observed in the perpetration of physical IPV in the post-deployment period, which is in keeping with some research findings of similar rates of physical IPV perpetration among males and females in both military and civilian populations [19, 24]. However, this finding is not consistent in other research studies which have found both higher prevalence of physical IPV perpetration among males compared to females [18] and alternately females compared to males [54, 55]. Males were more likely to report arguing with their intimate partners/spouses post-deployment than female personnel, which echoes recent research among UK military personnel which found that males were significantly more likely to report perpetration of non-physical forms of IPVA (emotional or psychological abuse) than females [19]. In contrast with previous general violence research among UK military personnel [20, 21, 56, 57], we did not find a clear socio-demographic profile for those who reported relationship conflict or physical IPV. Contrasting with previous research, younger age was independently associated with arguing with an intimate partner following deployment but not physical IPV [14, 42, 58], and no further socio-demographic factors were found to be associated with relationship conflict or IPV. However, the association between childhood adversity and both relationship conflict and physical IPV in the post-deployment period in this study adds to findings from wider military research, which have highlighted the role of early life adversity in IPVA perpetration [19, 40, 42, 58], and identified it as an important factor to be considered in risk assessments of future IPVA.
A number of military characteristics have been found in repeated studies to be associated with violence post-deployment by UK military personnel, including serving in the Army, being of lower rank, engagement status and having left service [20, 22]. By contrast, IPVA perpetration among UK military personnel has only been shown to be significantly more likely among Army and Royal Navy personnel, compared to RAF [19]. In keeping with the aforementioned research, the current study found a higher risk of relationship conflict and physical IPV post-deployment for Army compared to RAF personnel (risk for Royal Navy personnel was similar to Army personnel). In addition, veteran personnel (ex-serving) were significantly more likely to report both arguing with their partner and perpetration of physical IPV post-deployment, which adds to findings from international studies in to military IPVA perpetration [18]. However, these associations were no longer significant after adjusting for time since most recent deployment. This is suggestive of issues relating to response bias and disclosure, whereby participants may be more likely to disclose relationship conflict and IPV in the post-deployment period once they have left the military. Qualitative research into help-seeking for IPVA among military personnel has identified a number of barriers to reporting while still serving [59], including a perception that help-seeking could ‘let the side down’ and impact colleagues, result in military personnel appearing weak and not able to cope, or negatively impact their career and opportunities for promotions. Services working with military personnel must be mindful of these challenges relating to bias and disclosure for IPVA identification, risk assessment and management.
Deployment-related variables and mental health and alcohol misuse problems were found to be key factors associated with post-deployment relationship conflict and IPV. Adding to mounting evidence for the link between deployment-related trauma and IPVA perpetration [19, 39, 41, 60], intensity of exposure to trauma while on deployment was associated with increased risk of relationship conflict and IPV perpetration in the weeks following deployment. Role on deployment was only found to be associated with relationship conflict post-deployment and not physical violence. This contrasts with wider military violence literature, which found combat role to be a significant factor in post-deployment family violence [22]. The subjective experience of trauma on deployment is likely to be a more sensitive measure of deployment experience than role on deployment, which may not accurately capture trauma or combat exposure.
Probable mental health difficulties and alcohol misuse were strongly and independently associated with relationship conflict and physical IPV perpetration in the weeks following deployment, in keeping with a large body of research linking mental health difficulties and alcohol misuse with relationship conflict and IPVA [19, 39, 42, 61]. Our findings point to the role that PTSD, especially deployment-related, may play in relationship conflict and IPV perpetration post-deployment. However, given the cross-sectional nature of the data, the direction of that association could not be established in this study. Recent qualitative research by our group has facilitated better understanding of the complexity and nuances of the association between deployment, mental health difficulties and IPVA perpetration [34, 36]. That research highlighted the significance of separations and difficulties re-adjusting to family life post-deployment in creating context for relationship tensions and conflict. In addition, mental health and psychological difficulties were perceived by both military personnel [36] and civilian victim-survivors of abusive relationships with military personnel [34] to contribute to relationship conflict and IPVA post-deployment. Difficulties adjusting post-deployment, and mental health difficulties in particular, were perceived to amplify other influences of military culture and socialisation, which were observed to spill over into the home and affect relationships and risk of IPVA [36], such as a need for order and control and aggressive communication styles.
This study provides much needed insight into factors associated with relationship conflict and physical IPV perpetration in the weeks following return from military deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. However, despite a large sample size, low numbers of female personnel precluded our ability to include gender in regression analyses, which were run using our male sample only. We must acknowledge that participants may have under-reported their relationship conflict and physical IPV perpetration in this study, as in other population studies of IPVA [62, 63], and that findings are representative of those who reported being in a relationship following their most recent deployment and endorsed relationship conflict or physical IPV perpetration in the questionnaire. In addition, this study does not capture the potential bidirectional nature of IPV, which has been shown to be common in military communities [19, 40, 64]. Although not the focus of the study, information on participants’ ethnicity or sexual orientation and sexual violence post-deployment was not collected. Further research should include measures of frequency and impact of IPV, explore sexual IPV and bidirectional abuse in more depth, and the role of ethnicity and sexual orientation, which may differentially impact risk of IPVA [39, 42, 65]. Longitudinal design is also needed to robustly examine the role of mental health difficulties in the perpetration of IPVA.
This study importantly highlights the risk of relationship conflict and physical IPV upon return from deployment within military relationships and identifies factors which are associated with this risk. Although the UK military is not currently engaged in regular operational deployments, the impact of past deployments and deployment-related trauma have been suggested to have longer lasting effects and contribute to IPVA beyond the peri-deployment period [34, 36]. As such, services providing health or welfare support to serving and ex-serving personnel and their families must consider history of deployment, and particularly trauma experienced on deployment, in their risk assessments to improve identification and management of IPVA in military communities. These findings also suggest that any strategy to improve identification, management and prevention of IPVA must involve mental health services. Integrated referral pathways and a widespread uplift in training to increase awareness and understanding of IPVA, as well as the potential impact of deployment-related trauma and mental health difficulties, would support such strategies.
References
World Health Organisation (2012) Understanding and addressing violence against women: intimate partner violence (No. WHO/RHR/12.36)
Devries KM, Mak JY, Garcia-Moreno C, Petzold M, Child JC, Falder G et al (2013) The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science 340(6140):1527–1528
Home Office (2021) Domestic abuse act 2021: overarching factsheet
Office for National Statistics (2020) Domestic abuse victim characteristics, England and Wales: year ending March 2020
Campbell AM (2020) An increasing risk of family violence during the Covid-19 pandemic: strengthening community collaborations to save lives. Forensic Sci Int: Rep 2:100089
Usher K, Bhullar N, Durkin J, Gyamfi N, Jackson D (2020) Family violence and COVID-19 Increased vulnerability and reduced options for support. Int J Mental Health Nurs 29(4):549–552
Ellsberg M, Jansen HA, Heise L, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C (2008) Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: an observational study. The lancet 371(9619):1165–1172
Campbell JC (2002) Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet 359(9314):1331–1336
Oliver R, Alexander B, Roe S, Wlasny M (2019) The economic and social costs of domestic abuse. UK Home Office.
Wood SL, Sommers MS (2011) Consequences of intimate partner violence on child witnesses: a systematic review of the literature. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs 24(4):223–236
Devaney J (2008) Chronic child abuse and domestic violence: children and families with long-term and complex needs. Child Fam Soc Work 13(4):443–453
Jouriles EN, McDonald R (2015) Intimate partner violence, coercive control, and child adjustment problems. J Interpers Violence 30(3):459–474
NAPO (2009) Armed forces and the criminal justice system. Napo the trade union and professional association for family court and probation staff
Stamm S (2009) Intimate partner violence in the military: securing our country, starting with the home 1. Fam Court Rev 47(2):321–339
Kamarck KN, Ott A, Sacco LN (2019) Military families and intimate partner violence: background and issues for congress
O’Donnell N, Steve K, Tepper L, Verdugo A, Yilek C (2021) Military's domestic violence crisis compounded after 20 years of war. CBS News.
Rabb K (2012) A silent epidemic: spousal abuse is the military’s best kept secret. The Huffington post.
Kwan J, Sparrow K, Facer-Irwin E, Thandi G, Fear N, MacManus D (2020) Prevalence of intimate partner violence perpetration among military populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggress Violent Behav 53:101419
MacManus D, Short R, Lane R, Jones M, Hull L, Howard LM, et al. (2022) Intimate partner violence and abuse experience and perpetration in UK military personnel compared to a general population cohort: a cross-sectional study. The Lancet Regional Health-Europe
MacManus D, Dean K, Al Bakir M, Iversen AC, Hull L, Fahy T et al (2012) Violent behaviour in UK military personnel returning home after deployment. Psychol Med 42(8):1663–1673
MacManus D, Dean K, Jones M, Rona RJ, Greenberg N, Hull L et al (2013) Violent offending by UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data linkage cohort study. The Lancet 381(9870):907–917
Kwan J, Jones M, Somaini G, Hull L, Wessely S, Fear NT et al (2018) Post-deployment family violence among UK military personnel. Psychol Med 48(13):2202–2212
Smith K, Coleman K, Eder S, Hall P (2011) Homicides, firearm offences and intimate violence 2009/10. London: Home Office
Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt JW, Kim HK (2012) A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partn Abus 3(2):231–280
Cafferky BM, Mendez M, Anderson JR, Stith SM (2018) Substance use and intimate partner violence: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Violence 8(1):110
Howard LM, Trevillion K, Khalifeh H, Woodall A, Agnew-Davies R, Feder G (2010) Domestic violence and severe psychiatric disorders: prevalence and interventions. Psychol Med 40(6):881
Khalifeh H, Oram S, Trevillion K, Johnson S, Howard LM (2015) Recent intimate partner violence among people with chronic mental illness: findings from a national cross-sectional survey. Br J Psychiatry 207(3):207–212
Oram S, Trevillion K, Feder G, Howard LM (2013) Prevalence of experiences of domestic violence among psychiatric patients: systematic review. Br J Psychiatry 202:94–99
Oram S, Trevillion K, Khalifeh H, Feder G, Howard LM (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychiatric disorder and the perpetration of partner violence. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 23(4):361–376
Spencer C, Mallory AB, Cafferky BM, Kimmes JG, Beck AR, Stith SM (2019) Mental health factors and intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization: a meta-analysis. Psychol Violence 9(1):1
Trevillion K, Oram S, Feder G, Howard LM (2012) Experiences of domestic violence and mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 7(12):e51740
Ministry of Defence (2018) No defence for abuse: domestic abuse strategy 2018–2023, UK.
Families APAPTFoMDSfY, Members S (2007) The psychological needs of US military service members and their families: a preliminary report.: Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Alves-Costa F, Lane R, Gribble R, Taylor A, Fear N, MacManus D (2021) Perceptions of the impact of military life on relationships and Intimate partner violence and abuse victimisation among civilian partners of UK military personnel. SSM - Qual Res Health 1:100006
Clark JC, Messer SC (2006) Intimate partner violence in the US military: rates, risks, and responses
Lane R, Alves-Costa F, Gribble R, Taylor A, Howard L, Fear N, et al. Perceptions of the impact of military life on relationships and Intimate partner violence and abuse among UK military personnel. Under review
Williamson E (2012) Domestic abuse and military families: the problem of reintegration and control. Br J Soc Work 42(7):1371–1387
MacManus D, Rona R, Fear N, Wessely S (2015) Violent offending among military personnel: prevalence and impact of deployment, combat and post-deployment mental health problems. Epidemiogic Rev 37(1):196–212
Cancio R, Altal D (2019) Comparing post-gulf war and post-9/11 era of service among veterans: intimate partner violence and substance use by race and ethnicity. J Ethn Subst Abus 20(1):77–103
Zamorski MA, Wiens-Kinkaid ME (2013) Cross-sectional prevalence survey of intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization in Canadian military personnel. BMC Public Health 13:1019
Teten AL, Schumacher JA, Taft CT, Stanley MA, Kent TA, Bailey SD et al (2010) Intimate partner aggression perpetrated and sustained by male Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam veterans with and without posttraumatic stress disorder. J Interpers Violence 25(9):1612–1630
Fonseca CA, Schmaling KB, Stoever C, Gutierrez C, Blume AW, Russell ML (2006) Variables associated with intimate partner violence in a deploying military sample. Mil Med 171(7):627–631
Stevelink SA, Jones M, Hull L, Pernet D, MacCrimmon S, Goodwin L et al (2018) Mental health outcomes at the end of the British involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts: a cohort study. Br J Psychiatry 213(6):690–697
Hotopf M, Hull L, Fear NT, Browne T, Horn O, Iversen A et al (2006) The health of UK military personnel who deployed to the 2003 Iraq war: a cohort study. The Lancet 367(9524):1731–1741
Fear NT, Jones M, Murphy D, Hull L, Iversen AC, Coker B et al (2010) What are the consequences of deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan on the mental health of the UK armed forces? A cohort study. The Lancet 375(9728):1783–1797
Iversen AC, Fear NT, Simonoff E, Hull L, Horn O, Greenberg N et al (2007) Influence of childhood adversity on health among male UK military personnel. Br J Psychiatry 191:506–511
Goldberg DP, Gater R, Sartorius N, Ustun TB, Piccinelli M, Gureje O et al (1997) The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol Med 27(1):191–197
Weathers FW, Litz BT, Keane TM, Palmieri PA, Marx BP, Schnurr PP (2013) The ptsd checklist for dsm-5 (pcl-5). Scale available from the National center for PTSD at www.ptsd.va.gov
Babor TF, C. H-BJ, Saunders JB, Monteiro MG (2001) AUDIT the alcohol use disorders identification test: guidelines for use in primary care. Geneva World Health Organisation
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB (1999) Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary care evaluation of mental disorders. Patient health questionnaire. JAMA 282(18):1737–44
Sundin J, Herrell RK, Hoge CW, Fear NT, Adler AB, Greenberg N et al (2014) Mental health outcomes in US and UK military personnel returning from Iraq. Br J Psychiatry 204(3):200–207
.Novaco R (1975) Dimensions of anger reactions. Irvine, CA: University of California. p 639
StataCorp (2019) Stata statistical software: release 16. College station, TX: StataCorp LLC
Stander VA, Thomsen CJ, Merrill LL, Rabenhorst MM, Crouch JL, Milner JS (2011) Gender and military contextual risk factors for intimate partner aggression. Mil Psychol 23(6):639–658
Heavey SC, Homish DL, Goodell EA, Homish GG (2017) US reserve soldiers’ combat exposure and intimate partner violence: not more common but it is more violent. Stress Health 33(5):617–623
MacManus D, Dickson H, Short R, Burdett H, Kwan J, Jones M et al (2019) Risk and protective factors for offending among UK armed forces personnel after they leave service: a data linkage study. Psychol Med 51(2):236–243
MacManus D, Rona R, Dickson H, Somaini G, Fear N, Wessely S (2015) Aggressive and violent behavior among military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: prevalence and link with deployment and combat exposure. Epidemiol Rev 37(1):196–212
Rosen LN, Parmley AM, Knudson KH, Fancher P (2002) Gender differences in the experience of intimate partner violence among active duty US army soldiers. Mil Med 167(11):959–63
Lane R, Alves-Costa F, Gribble R, Taylor A, Howard L, Fear N, et al. Help-seeking for intimate partner violence and abuse: experiences of UK military personnel. Under review.
Taft CT, Pless AP, Stalans LJ, Koenen KC, King LA, King DW (2005) Risk factors for partner violence among a national sample of combat veterans. J Consult Clin Psychol 73(1):151
Trevillion K, Williamson E, Thandi G, Borschmann R, Oram S, Howard LM (2015) A systematic review of mental disorders and perpetration of domestic violence among military populations. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 50(9):1329–1346
Caetano R, Field C, Ramisetty-Mikler S, Lipsky S (2009) Agreement on reporting of physical, psychological, and sexual violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. J Interpers Violence 24(8):1318–1337
Caetano R, Schafer J, Field C, Nelson SM (2002) Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. J Interpers Violence 17(12):1308–1322
Park Y, Sullivan K, Riviere LA, Merrill JC, Clarke-Walper K (2021) Intimate partner violence perpetration among military spouses. J Interpers Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211004139
Mims D, Waddell R (2019) An examination of intimate partner violence and sexual violence among individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and/or transgender (LBGTQ). Environ Soc Psychol. https://doi.org/10.18063/esp.v3.i2.786
Funding
Funding was provided by the National Institute for Health Research (PDF-2015–08-113).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the UK Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee (reference: 448/MODREC/13) and the King’s College London Psychiatry Nursing and Midwifery Research Ethics Subcommittee (reference: PNM/12/13–169).
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lane, R., Short, R., Jones, M. et al. Relationship conflict and partner violence by UK military personnel following return from deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 57, 1795–1805 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-022-02317-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-022-02317-8